Germplasm Resource Status and Seed Adaptability of Nypa fruticans Wurmb, an Endangered Species in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research aimed to investigate the germplasm status and seed viability characteristics of the species Nypa fruticans Wurmb. The research has been found to be of rather poor quality in terms of the discussion of the examined parameters and findings. There are many missing, incorrect sentences or sentence fragments within the text. Detailed corrections, suggestions, and criticisms have been presented to the authors within the text. However, to summarize the main problems:

• It has been observed that some statements mentioned in the title and abstract of the research are not present in the core of the study.
• There are definite and incorrect statements in the text, such as in Line 10. A brief literature review shows that the situation is not as stated.
• Some keywords used have not been mentioned in any part of the study.
• There are errors in punctuation and scientific nomenclature in the text, such as in Line 77 or 341. It is unclear what is being conveyed in some sentences.
• There are significant deficiencies in the methodology of the study. For instance, it is unclear how and based on what the parameters examined in seed viability were calculated, as no sources were mentioned. Some of the parameters examined are analogous and can be derived from each other using simple formulations. This gives the impression that unnecessary examinations were attempted to make the research appear more comprehensive. The responses of seeds to salinity, flooding, and lighting were examined, but each parameter was considered as a single-factor. However, considering them as three-factor would both increase the reliability of the study data and help to realistically identify the causes of problems related to seeds or seedlings.
• How were the distribution areas and botanical structures of the species Nypa fruticans, claimed by the authors to form the essence of the study, determined? What kind of observations and analyses were conducted? There is no method, modeling, mapping, etc., provided. It is merely stated that the natural distribution areas and botanical structures of the species were examined, with some not very significant data shared in the findings section. This is a major deficiency in terms of evaluating the study.
• The examined features in the discussion section have been successfully compared with similar literature sources. However, the rationale for examining these parameters, the effectiveness of the results, and the inferences are written very weakly. Therefore, the discussion needs to be expanded. For example, it is already known that as salinity increases, seed viability decreases and the average germination time increases. Which salt did the authors test? Why did they choose this concentration? What is the relationship between the morphological, physiological, and molecular characteristics of this species' seeds and the obtained results? Such essential points need to be addressed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some parts of the manuscript, sentences are not fully understood. It needs to be rewritten with shorter and clearer sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As my expertise, I could suggest only in germination part of the study.

1- Why does the author use 5% salinity and 4h/d flooding time in different light treatments or why do they use 60% light intensity for different salinity and flooding (Table 1)? How did they know that 60% light intensity or 5% salinity was better for each study before is done? It is better to be used control (zero). 

2- In line 154 use GR for germination percentage but in line 166 used GP. Please change all GR to GP and SR to SP (It is better to change SR to EP)

3-

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Germplasm resource status and seed adaptability of Nypa fruticans Wurmb, a endangered relict species in China" is a presentation of a very original and complete study. I am not even sure that mentioning the country in the title is necessary as the work is universal and can be extended to other mangrove communities outside China.

The relevance of the paper is ensured by the fact that mangroves have both economic and ecological importance. Their preservation is a human contribution to the maintenance of biodiversity, which is gradually being subjected to anthropogenic press.

The work is written in a very clear language, it is pleasant to read. It is organised logically, all the goals set by the authors in the work have been achieved and the conclusions correspond to them.

However, I see one drawback in the work, which would be good to correct in the discussion, at least against the background of literature data. The authors focus on light, salinity and time of flooding (hypoxia). However, the paper says nothing about water temperature. It is known that the amount of diffused oxygen in water depends on both salinity and temperature. Therefore, these two factors are indirectly related. I strongly recommend the authors to obtain information about the temperature regime of their research and the climate in the region of their research. And on the basis of the literature at least to make an assumption and lowering of temperature can influence germination in flooding. 

I believe that after making these clarifications, the work can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf